Mr. West is trying to present Catholic teaching on sex to a sexualized, uncatechized secular generation in a way that is “edgy” and designed to appeal to modern youth. Maybe he went too far with the Hugh Hefner stuff, and perhaps some of Dr. Hildebrand’s criticisms are valid, but I do hope that any criticisms by orthodox Catholics of Mr. West will be in a positive tone of constructive criticism. Obviously his heart is in the right place, but often we orthodox Catholics react with greater venom toward people basically on our side who we might slightly disagree with than toward full throated Catholic teaching deniers. Mr. West is obviously not a member of SIECUS or an Eve Ensler.

“Mr. West is trying to present Catholic teaching on sex to a sexualized, uncatechized secular generation in a way that is edgy and designed to appeal to modern youth. Maybe he went too far with the Hugh Hefner stuff, . . .”

Don’t know much about West. But I have a hard time imagining a decaying old man in an ascot like Hefner is either edgy or appealing to “modern youth.” (Not being either modern or a youth myself, my opinion on that subject is subject to revision if it turns out he is hip or gear.)

Not complete the sexual revolution by condoning more sex................but following Pope John Paul II’s recommendation for abstinence and faithfulness to the virtues of chastity and modesty.

This is liberal media again, folks. (Even if it is a Catholic source.)

Unless a person has taken West’s programs or audited them, they cannot speak to what he teaches, because he follows Pope John Paul II’s book “Theology of the Body.” What Pope would teach other than abstinence, faithfulness, chastity and modesty?

I've been worried about West for a long time. As a pro-life, pro-chastity activist, I bought some tapes he did several years ago. In them, he made some outrageous statements that made me think of a cult leader. For example, he invited his listeners to imagine they are all naked together, and repeated this image frequently, while talking about the ecstasy of sex. He stated categorically that we are all naked in heaven, and he flatly insisted that anybody who disagrees with anything he says is “a bad Catholic.”

I wrote a letter of concern to his Bishop (Chaput), who was also his employer at that time, expressing my great concern about half a dozen of his strange remarks.

The only reply I received was a six page, single-spaced diatribe from West accusing me of being a bad Catholic for doubting him. It was harshly worded, and left me a bit shaken that he had my home address from the letter.

There was also some concern expressed about him by a few theologians a few years ago, rather mildly phrased considering what I had seen from West's work, but nothing seems to have come of it.

I have seen Christopher West present at least some portion of TOB on EWTN. Only one aspect of the presentation was troubling to me, but it was huge. CW relayed a story about his in-laws attending Mass on Sunday, the day after their wedding night and consummation of the marriage. His father-in-law was moved to tears at the thought of the new meaning that “this is my body”/the Eucharist took on for him in light of his wedding night. I must confess that I found this really disturbing as a sexualization of the sacrament. I know many devout Catholics who think CW is the best, but I must admit that the linking of the marital act/sexual intercourse with the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ was absolutely horrific to me.

I must admit that the linking of the marital act/sexual intercourse with the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ was absolutely horrific to me.

It shouldn't be. It should be common knowledge.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.[e] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.-- Ephesians 5:28

The marital act confirms and renews the sacrament of matrimony, which unites husband and wife as a living sign of the eschatological union of Christ and his church.

That eschatological union is celebrated and effected directly on earth in the Eucharist.

That's why heaven is described as the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb". I could go on and on and on, but if understanding that the marital act is the natural image or sign of the union of Christ and the Church is "absolutely horrific" to you, I think that you're seriously misunderstanding something somewhere.

I was disappointed in von Hildebrand on this one. I dislike people commenting on things they admit they haven’t read. Her comments show that she really doesn’t get the “gist” of TOB. Nor does she understand what West is saying. Furthermore, I am disappointed in her not speaking to West privately first, rather than erroneously attacking him.

Gotta say, I find West’s writings much more helpful in my marriage than Letters to a Young Bride. That’s not to say that von Hildrebrand’s work isn’t important. It’s just that she and West are reaching out to different audiences. This being the CATHOLIC church and all.

12
posted on 05/13/2009 12:21:33 PM PDT
by mockingbyrd
(From the God Who brought you the plague of frogs and boils comes......OBAMA!!!!)

It is an unnecessary attack on West. I understand that his style sort of flirts with vulgarity: numerous references to eating from a dumpster and the purity of a soda in a can get tiring.

However, the underlying theology of the marital embrace as a figure of the love of Christ for us is orthodox, and West does warn that the parallels with the Eucharist can be turned into a caricature easily.

I think Regina understands it but once again do we have to sexualize something sacred and divine. Our cultural is saturated with sex,we are drowning in sex! When we approach the altar of divine love, we partake of the sacred body and blood of our Lord,Jesus. Do we really need to sexualize our Lords’ body in connection to sex. Yes as Christians we believe sex is a gift to one man and wife but the church has also claimed celibacy as a higher gift. Even the homosexuality agenda has tried to make our Lord fit their agenda. Then we have secularist trying to put our Lord married to Mary Magdalene. When we approach the altar of the Lord,we experience him. and for those few moments we are in heaven with our Lord and not bound to earthly things.

14
posted on 05/13/2009 9:54:51 PM PDT
by red irish
(Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.